X-Message-Number: 15604
From: 
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 11:05:41 EST
Subject: classic cars

Mark PLus' #15600 about Sohn's piece about Olshansky's views: Olshansky falls 
into the "quaint" category. 

People like Olshansky just don't get it. It's not (primarily) about designing 
new people; it's about repairing living people (as well as "dead" people), or 
preventing their deterioration. 

In the context of a mature nanotechnology, it doesn't matter that our 
"design" leads to "natural" deterioration. It doesn't even matter if we don't 
understand the causes of aging in detail. All that matters is that we change 
wrong molecules into right molecules and put them where they belong, or put 
atoms where they belong.

This is not to say that a mature nanotech will be necessary to stop or 
reverse senescence. Much more likely, relatively simple and earlier 
interventions will be sufficient. Kennita Watson's post yesterday is one such 
straw in the wind. 

It is important not to lose sight of the big picture. Youthful good health is 
possible, since it exists. It can (in principle) be restored by brute force, 
if necessary, "simply" by restoring the original configurations, e.g. 
removing collagen cross-links with appropriate enzymes a la Bjorksten. 

Every day I see ancient automobiles scooting around town, bright and shiny 
and running smoothly. They are "simply" well maintained and have parts 
replaced or rebuilt as necessary. The analogy isn't perfect, but those 
"classic" cars could be us. 

Robert Ettinger
Cryonics Institute
Immortalist Society
http://www.cryonics.org

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=15604